Bibliographie sélective OHADA

International investment agreements employ dispute settlement procedures that differ markedly from their counterparts in trade agreements. A prominent and controversial difference arises with respect to the issue of “standing”: Who has the right to complain to adjudicators about a violation of the agreement? While trade agreements limit standing to the member governments (state-to-state dispute settlement), investment agreements routinely extend standing to private investors as well (investor-state dispute settlement). We develop parallel models of trade and investment agreements and employ them to study this difference. We find that the difference in standing between trade and investment agreements can be understood as deriving from the fundamentally different problems that these agreements are designed to solve. Our analysis also identifies some important qualifications to the case for including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in investment agreements, thereby offering a potential explanation for the strong political controversy associated with these provisions.

Reconstruction of dispute resolution law between importers and exporters from an international law perspective. The purpose of this study is to analyze: 1) How does the law of dispute resolution between importers and exporters perspective international law? 2) How is the implementation of the recommendations of the dispute resolution bodies of the World Trade Organization from an international law perspective? The research method used is normative juridical with a statutory approach, concept approach, and case studies. The results showed that: 1) Import export is a series of company activities that begin with an agreement. The agreement is the result of previous activities carried out by exporters and importers, namely in the form of supply and demand. The agreement is poured into a sales contract which is an agreement between exporters and importers to trade goods in accordance with mutually agreed conditions and each party binds itself to carry out all obligations incurred. 2) The series of processes undertaken in dispute settlement at the WTO consist of 4 processes, including: Mandatory Consultation between disputing parties to reach a settlement approved by the parties, Application for the establishment of a Panel, the Appellate Body, and the implementation and implementation of recommendations and provisions endorsed by the DSB.

Courts and arbitration tribunals aim to resolve disputes and make enforceable decisions in their distinctive way. However, unlike courts, tribunals lack state enforcement power to function independently. Consequently, arbitrating parties have had to approach the courts for various supports. However, while supporting arbitration, the Nigerian courts have been criticised for overwhelmingly undermining party autonomy. Thus, the determination of the extent to which Nigerian courts should participate in arbitration remains topical. This research reviewed the current regime governing the scope and limits to the court's roles in arbitration in Nigeria, aiming to find out the problematic areas where the court's roles have been a leeway to undermine party autonomy. The research found that the current practice in Nigeria generally observes party autonomy as an affirmative stance by the Nigerian courts and laws. It further found the areas where the Nigerian system has, nevertheless, created some leeway for the courts to undermine party autonomy. These include (i) the narrow phrasing and interpretation of Section 34 of the Act and some specific provisions, and their failure to set out a definite limit to courts' roles in arbitration, (ii) the application of the concept of constitutional supremacy which has been interpreted to allow Nigerian courts to participate in all cases including arbitration and override parties' agreement, (iii) absence of Institutionalised tracking and periodic recalibration of the relationship between the courts and arbitration, and (iv) judicialisation of administrative roles of the courts in arbitration. To this end, a legal and analytical review of these problematic issues was conducted, particularly using some elements of the legal comparative approach to analyse the problems in the light of the related practices in some similar or advanced jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Ghana and Malaysia. Lessons were drawn from the analysis. Short- and long-term recommendations were, therefore, made for law reforms in Nigeria, particularly towards recalibrating the court's roles in arbitration such as to wedge the loopholes in the system without which recalcitrant parties and jurists could take advantage to undermine party autonomy.

Dans la période récente, de nombreuses précisions viennent affermir le régime procédural des recours portés devant le juge français du contrôle. Ainsi, de l’article 1520 du Code de procédure civile qui ne liste que les griefs portant sur la sentence arbitrale elle-même, et qui autorise donc à se prévaloir des moyens d’irrecevabilité de la requête d’exequatur (Cass. 1re civ., 13 avril 2023, n° 21- 50053). Ainsi encore, de l’irrecevabilité du recours en annulation qui n’emporte pas exequatur de la sentence arbitrale (Cass. 1re civ., 7 juin 2023, n° 22-12757). On notera également les arrêts nombreux portant sur le régime de la convention d’arbitrage, et partant de la compétence arbitrale. Enfin, l’arrêt rendu par la Cour de Strasbourg dans l’affaire Semenya (CEDH, 11 juill. 2023, n° 10934/21, Semenya c/ Suisse) montre que le contrôle des droits fondamentaux devra être mené de manière scrupuleuse par le juge de l’annulation, et ce, même si la situation litigieuse ne présentait guère de liens avec les États parties à la CEDH.

La famille se fonde sur des liens qui ne sont pas nécessairement rompus par l'existence d'un conflit. De ce fait, la résolution des conflits familiaux nécessite l'usage de méthodes favorisant la restauration des relations familiale ou un vivre ensemble harmonieux entre les membres de la famille. Dans cette perspective, en droit français et ivoirien, les systèmes traditionnels de résolution des conflits familiaux étaient partagés entre la méthode amiable et la méthode judiciaire. En droit français, ce partage s'observe durant la période de l'Ancien régime et la période révolutionnaire. En droit ivoirien, cela s'observe durant la période coloniale. Cependant, dans ces deux ordres juridiques, dans le cadre légal, la méthode amiable a été reléguée au second plan au profit de la méthode judiciaire. Toutefois, ces dernières années, face au besoin de réduire la charge de travail du juge, d'apporter des solutions aux conflits dans des délais raisonnables et d'adapter la résolution des conflits à la conception sociale de la justice, se développent les modes alternatifs. Ceux-ci regroupent un ensemble de mécanismes ayant pour objet la résolution amiable des conflits. Le développement de ces modes varie d'un pays à l'autre. En France, ils font l'objet d'un développement accru. En Côte d'Ivoire leur développement est timide. Néanmoins, des méthodes similaires aux modes alternatifs sont utilisées par le justiciable ivoirien pour la résolution des conflits familiaux, mais dans un cadre informel. Eu égard à l'attachement du justiciable ivoirien à la justice informelle, aussi qualifiée de justice traditionnelle, se manifeste un besoin de sa reconnaissance légale. La justice traditionnelle ivoirienne étant par principe amiable tout comme les modes alternatifs, le développement de ces modes dans la législation familiale ivoirienne pourrait se faire dans le cadre d'une conciliation des règles les régissant avec celles régissant la justice traditionnelle ivoirienne. Mais cette conciliation devrait être faite en tenant compte des limites des modes alternatifs observées grâce à l'expérience française de ces mécanismes et des réalités sociales ivoiriennes. The family is founded on ties that are not necessarily broken by the existence of conflicts. Therefore, resolving family conflicts requires the use of methods that promote the restoration of family relationships or a harmonious living together among family members. In this regard, under French and Ivorian law, traditional systems for resolving family conflicts were divided between the amicable method and the judicial method. In French law, this division can be observed in the periods of the Old Regime and the Revolution. In Ivorian law, this can be observed during the colonial period. However, in both legal systems, the amicable method failed from a legal point of view in favor of the judicial method. This failure was due to the litigant and the legislator. However, in recent years, faced with the need to reduce the judge's workload, provide solutions to conflicts in reasonable timeframes, and adapt conflicts resolution to the social conception of justice, alternative methods of resolution are developed. These comprise a set of mechanisms aimed at amicably resolving conflicts. The development of these methods varies from one country to another. In France, they are subject to increased development. In Côte d'Ivoire, their development is modest. Nevertheless, similar methods to alternative modes are used by Ivorian litigants for the resolution of family conflicts, but in an informal setting. In view of the Ivorian litigants' attachment to informal justice due to the fact that it represents Ivorian traditional justice, there is a need for its legal recognition. Since Ivorian traditional justice is amicable by nature, just like alternative modes, the development of these methods in Ivorian family legislation could take place within the framework of a reconciliation of the rules governing them with those governing Ivorian traditional justice. However, this reconciliation should take into account the limitations of alternative modes observed through the French experience of these mechanisms and ivorian social realities.

A Lei n° 9.307, de 1996, a Lei de Arbitragem, com a redação que lhe foi dada pela Lei n° 13.129, de 2015, passou a prever expressamente que a Administração Pública direta e indireta poderá utilizar-se da arbitragem para dirimir conflitos relativos a direitos patrimoniais disponíveis. Ultrapassadas as discussões em torno da arbitrabilidade subjetiva, a arbitrabilidade objetiva das disputas envolvendo a administração pública ganha papel de destaque. Divergências a respeito do que seriam os direitos patrimoniais disponíveis da administração pública faz com que a questão seja frequentemente levada ao poder judiciário, em atentado a valores informadores da arbitragem, como a segurança jurídica e a celeridade. Daí a necessidade de se buscar solução para a questão, o que pode ser feito a partir do direito administrativo contemporâneo, que valoriza cada vez mais a atuação consensuada em detrimento da atuação unilateral e impositiva da administração pública. Law No. 9,307, of 1996, the Brazilian Arbitration Law, amended by Law No. 13,129, of 2015, expressly provides that the direct and indirect public administration may use arbitration to resolve conflicts relating to renounceable patrimonial rights. Discussions relating to arbitrability regarding the parties in arbitration have given place to discussions regarding subject-matter arbitrability relating to disputes involving public administration. Different understandings about the renounceable patrimonial rights of the public administration frequently take the discussion to be ruled by judiciary courts, jeopardizing values that inform arbitration, such as legal certainty and celerity. The current scenario demands that a solution to the issue is provided. That can be done based on modern administrative Brazilian law, which increasingly values consensual action rather than unilateral action by public administration.

The research is premised on two important developments, accelerating technological innovation and shifts in dispute resolution paradigms. These advancements offer an innovative framework for dispute avoidance and a more efficient, transparent process for resolving conflicts, particularly in commercial settings. To make this case, we use blockchain technology and smart contracts as technological exemplars, and mediation as an example of dispute resolution mechanism that can be positively impacted by the use of the relevant technology. The potential of these technologies to promote dispute avoidance and the emerging legal frameworks for resolving blockchain technology and smart contract disputes were also explored. We also examine how blockchain technology and smart contracts can be integrated into the mediation process, the advantages, challenges, and possible solutions.

L’unification des pratiques de médiation et de conciliation s’inscrit dans une démarche centrée sur l’activité du médiateur ou du conciliateur et présente un intérêt double. D’une part, elle forge l’action du médiateur ou du conciliateur en répertoriant les critères afin d’instituer un référentiel qualité. Ce dernier servira à évaluer ses bonnes pratiques du médiateur ou du conciliateur. L’unification desdites pratiques n’entend pas instituer une bonne pratique de la médiation ou de la conciliation. Elle prône pour une identification desdites pratiques afin de constituer un socle commun à l’action et aux prestations de tous les médiateurs des pays membres de l’OHADA. D’autre part, elle est garante du droit à un médiateur compétent et de l’accès à un processus de résolution des conflits de qualité pour une médiation efficace. Le droit à un médiateur compétent et l’accès à un processus de résolution des conflits de qualité sont les deux composantes essentielles du recours effectif à la justice amiable en droit OHADA. Ce recours découle d’un droit de la médiation et de la conciliation qui est en codification dans les pays membres de l’OHADA. Ladite codification est un préalable à cette démarche d’unification. Ainsi, la construction du droit de la médiation et la conciliation doit être accompagnée d’une réelle politique d’unification des pratiques de médiation et de conciliation afin d’inscrire le recours à l’amiable dans l’habitude des justiciables.

Les attributions du juge étatique sont confrontées à un flou juridique qui en résulte l’absence d’un régime juridique claire. A l’issue de cette réflexion, il convient de retenir que l’intervention du juge étatique à l’arbitrage dans l’espace OHADA est une œuvre particulièrement complexe car, si dans l’arbitrage spécifique de la CCJA, Il revient au juge communautaire la charge d’administrer la procédure et d’assurer le suivi durant la phase post-arbitrale, la détermination du juge étatique dans l’arbitrage de droit commun est une opération complexe et ses attributions ne sont pas claires. En effet, le flou lexical entourant l’expression générique désignant le juge étatique, entraîne un morcellement de son champ de compétence. Ce sont ses faiblesses qui justifient que des palliatifs soient proposés en vue de renforcer l’efficacité de l’intervention du juge national et de garantir par la même occasion la sécurité juridique dans l’espace OHADA.

Les conflits entre État hôtes et investisseurs étrangers occupent, depuis une dizaine d’année le devant de la scène géopolitique. Le questionnement se porte aujourd’hui de façon globale sur l’articulation des méthodes de règlement de conflits particulièrement complexes en raison de leurs implications institutionnelles, juridiques et économiques. Cette thèse se consacre à appréhender le cadre de règlement des conflits d’investissements selon le modèle du système afin de déterminer les conditions nécessaires à la transformation profonde du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs.L’analyse du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs suppose d’abord d’en restituer le contexte historique et d’examiner les bases institutionnelles posées par le système CIRDI, celui-ci étant le fruit d’une idée, la substitution du droit à la force pour la résolution des différends d’investissement : « le paradigme juridictionnel ». Or, si des bases institutionnelles avaient été posées, celles relationnelles ne l’étaient pas. Il s’en suit un usage des mécanismes du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs dans une logique défensive et adversariale. Cependant, la complexification croissante du monde et incidemment du système des investissements, conduit les acteurs de l’investissement à passer d’une logique adversariale à une logique de collaboration et de co-construction pour résoudre les inévitables problématiques auxquelles ils font face : « le paradigme consensuel ».Nous nous interrogeons alors sur les conditions nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de ce nouveau paradigme comme fondement du Système afin d’en provoquer la transformation profonde. L’application de concepts issus du champ d’étude de la complexité et des systèmes adaptatifs complexes permet de conclure que le consensualisme est tout à la fois le résultat et le moyen à mettre en œuvre pour faciliter cette transformation. Seule une démarche holistique, incluant l’ensemble des acteurs dans leur diversité, peut permettre de faire émerger des solutions innovantes à la hauteur des enjeux. Notre proposition est d’utiliser les outils et méthodes du Design Thinking appliqués au droit – le Legal Design- dont la démarche place les parties prenantes, et donc les éléments de culture et de contexte, au cœur du processus de conception de solutions, et susceptible de provoquer un changement dans la dynamique relationnelle des acteurs vers une logique de collaboration. Cette conclusion s’applique aux deux échelles retenues : celle de la transformation globale du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs, et celle des projets d’investissement, dont une gouvernance participative doit être encouragée afin d’en permettre le succès et de permettre de réaliser une des vocations premières du système des investissements qu’est le développement des États d’accueil au bénéfice de leurs communautés. Conflicts between host states and foreign investors have been at the forefront of the geopolitical scene for the past ten years. Now the question is being raised on a global scale concerning the articulation of particularly complex conflict resolution methods because of their institutional, legal and economic implications. This thesis focuses on understanding the framework for resolving investment disputes based on the system model in order to determine which conditions are necessary for the profound transformation of the Dispute Resolution System between host states and investors.Before any analysis of the Dispute Resolution System between host states and investors can be undertaken, it is necessary to provide an insight into the historical context and to examine the institutional foundations of the ICSID system. These are the result of an idea, substituting international law to the use of force for the resolution of investment disputes: “the jurisdictional paradigm”. If institutional foundations were laid, relational ones were not. This resulted in the use of the Dispute Resolution System mechanisms between host states and investors in a defensive and adversarial logic. However, the increasing complexity of the world and, incidentally, of the investment system, has led investment players to move from an adversarial logic to one of collaboration and co-construction in order to resolve the inevitable problems they face: “the consensual paradigm”.We then question the conditions required for the implementation of this new paradigm as the foundation of the System in order to bring about its profound transformation. Applying concepts from the fields of study into complexity and complex adaptive systems leads to the conclusion that consensus constitutes both the outcome and the means to facilitate this transformation. Only a holistic approach, including all the actors involved and their diverse contexts, can make it possible to develop innovative solutions that meet these challenges. Our proposal is to apply Design Thinking tools and methods in a legal context – Legal Design. This approach places stakeholders, and therefore the elements of culture and context, at the heart of the process of designing solutions, and is therefore well suited to bringing about a change in the relational dynamics of the actors towards a logic of collaboration. This conclusion applies to both scales: that of the overall transformation of the Dispute Resolution System between host states and investors and that of investment projects, whose participative governance structure must be recognized as a crucial success factor and a means to support one of the primary purposes of the investment system, which is the development of host states for the benefit of their communities.

International arbitration is often presented as an efficient and appropriate alternative to domestic court systems for resolving conflicts. For international arbitration to be effective, it is essential that the procedure adopted be open and accountable. This article will discuss the significance of openness in international arbitration and how it may promote justice, foster trust, and avoid corruption and misbehaviour.

A reconstruction of CCMA commissioners' perceptions of dispute resolution in South Africa: A multi-perspective approach This study focuses on the problems in the dispute resolution system in South Africa. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of commissioners of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) regarding the capacity of parties to effectively deal with labour .conflict and disputes within the legal framework provided by the Labour Relations Act (LRA) (66/95). This includes an investigation into the reasons for the high referral rate of unfair dismissal cases to the CCMA and the influence of the case-overload on the effective functioning of the disputé resolution system. The · functionalist and conflict theoretical perspectives are used to study the structural aspects of the dispute resolution system and to explore structural strain. The interactionist perspective is used in the methodology of this study to reconstruct the perceptions of a group of CCMA commissioners. This study is predominantly of a qualitative nature and was conducted in an exploratory manner through in-depth interviews and e-mail questionnaires. Dunlop's open systems approach allowed for the conceptualisation of the major dispute resolution components of the labour relations system. T!Je analysis of the transformation of conflict formed the basis for understanding the background, the problem statement, the aims and assumptions of this study. lt was found that the guidelines in Schedule eight of the LRA (66/95) have become the norm for dealing with conflict within an enterprise, creating complex and technical processes for dealing with disputes. However, most of the employers and individual employees do not have the knowledge and skills to operate effectively in the system. This has led to a new type of adversarialism in the individual employment relationship, which is based on rights, rules and power. The very technical nature of the internai conflict resolution mechanisms, the incapacity of the parties and the adversarial nature of the labour relationship have resulted in the high referral rate and consequent problems that the CCMA is experiencing.

This thesis examines two research questions: first, whether confidentiality in international commercial arbitration (‘ICA’) is an ‘accepted principle’, and second, if the answer to the first question is positive, whether confidentiality should be regulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments adopted in 2006 (‘Model Law’) and how such a provision would be framed. To place the questions in context, there is empirical evidence that confidentiality is expected by users of ICA but despite this expectation there appears to be no uniform approach on confidentiality in national laws and institutional rules.

The success of commercial arbitration law and practice is achieved as a result of several factors. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether efficacy of commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hindered by the legal framework which does not conform to the United Nations Commission Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UNCITRAL Model Law. Examining such other factors as support of the courts and government, the study specifically investigated the impact of lack of education about commercial arbitration for the business community and unregulated arbitrators on the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho. With the use of the desk reviews and interviews as data collection methods for this study, the evidence obtained has revealed that efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hampered by the law which is outdated and inconsistent with the UNCITRAL Model law. As such, support for the mechanism by the courts has been found to be at stake or adversely affected. Lack of support from the government and that of awareness campaigns about the mechanism for the business community have also been noted for constraining the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in the country. Further noticeable from the findings include limited commitment from the legal profession and unregulated arbitrators, both of which could have significantly obstructed the mechanism. The study thus concludes that there is an urgent need for law reforms and concerted commitment from the relevant stakeholders to help towards achieving efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

Cet article, est une contribution à la réflexion sur le statut de l’arbitre en droit OHADA, entamée par plusieurs chercheurs africains, et au centre de laquelle se trouve la problématique de l’immunité en droit de l’arbitrage OHADA. Le débat sur le choix d’un système d’immunité et la définition d’un véritable statut pour l’arbitre est toujours d’actualité. Cet article fait le point global des approches et conceptions sur l’immunité diplomatique des arbitres de la CCJA. En effet, le débat sur la responsabilité touche de façon étroite celui du statut de l’arbitre : la responsabilité étant la résultante d’un statut, cela nous permettra d’aborder la question du statut juridique de l’arbitre en droit OHADA. Dans un contexte où les différentes législations, la jurisprudence ou encore les conventions internationales, n’abordent que très peu le statut de l’arbitre, la détermination des éléments permettant de préciser les contours des devoirs, droits et obligations de l’arbitre, contribuera de façon certaine à mieux appréhender la mission de l’arbitre.

The position of international arbitration awards which is different from national arbitration awards and district court decisions causes differences in the rights and obligations of the parties to arbitral awards, especially those relating to legal remedies against awards. The formulation of the problem in this study is how are the rights and obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study state that the rights possessed by the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia are related to legal remedies against decisions, namely corrections to these international arbitral awards. The corrections to the decisions here are not only limited to administrative corrections but also corrections related to the principal international arbitral awards made before the request for execution was registered at the Central Jakarta District Court. While the obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards are to carry out international arbitral awards in good faith.

This introduction provides the reader with a general characterization of the 39 Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs) created by the 1919-1923 peace treaties to address disputes between private persons and between private persons and states as a result of the First World War. Noting that the rich literature published on the MATs was followed by near-silence after 1945, it mentions the numerous questions that they still raise today, before explaining how the various contributions to the book edited by the authors address them.